John McWhorter’s NY Times Opinion Piece on City Center’s Encores- Page 2

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 12:28pm

HeyMrMusic said: "Perhaps I should have said I welcome the revision but not necessarily under Encores’s umbrella."

Ah. I get what you’re saying. :)

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 12:37pm

I’m still confused about their inclusion of popular, beloved shows like A Chorus Line, Evita, and Into the Woods. Even Sunday was a head-scratcher.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 12:40pm

Those were all their “gala” shows, though with longer runs in order to make NYCC some real cash. 

Updated On: 2/16/22 at 12:40 PM

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 5:09pm

It will be fascinating to see if ENCORES! responds to this in anyway.   Would make a great talkback. 

[Melissa25]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 5:53pm

I am an adult and can appreciate as well as understand history and context.  I DVR the old Password with Allen Ludden to watch during my lunch hour. More often than not when he is introducing new female players, he asks what does your husband do?  It is like the female contestants are incapable of having a profession at all.  I always shake my head in amazement when this occurs but realize that we have come a long way since then. This acknowledgement is satisfying and important to me.  Stop the sanitizing!

 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 9:30pm

First off sorry for offending in my first post.

 

That said, shows at Encores should not have to censored/alter any part of an older work as a way to not be offensive. We do this with movies all the time. Look at what happens a while back with Gone With the Wind. Aside from the fact that places like City Center have a more local audience than say Broadway,who, might I add have the understanding that what was able to be depicted then May not be able to be depicted today. Aside from that if need be put a disclaimer on the page when you buy your ticket or put something in th playbill.

I get that theatre is a live and therefor ever changing art form unlike movies. But, we have the smarts to know that there are things in shows that were able to fly then but can’t today. Altering the script of a show for reasons of worrying about offending anyone is just stupid in my mind. We can go see a classic musical at Encores for example, yet, have the smarts to realize that the show may have offensive content that wasn’t so when it was initially performed. If you’re uncomfortable with that potentially being the case then don’t go. It’s part of our history for better or worse, and if we can’t acknowledge that it happened then it makes it hard for us as a society to move on and better ourselves going forward.  

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 9:36pm

I do find it interesting that on one hand we have a movement to tell the TRUE history of things that happened in this country even if that means making people uncomfortable, and on the other hand we have a lot of (seemingly) those same educated people saying we need to change and modify historical things so that people won’t be uncomfortable. 

Updated On: 2/16/22 at 09:36 PM

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 10:05pm

I just remember reading the new artistic director’s vision statements in the program and wondering if she was on the right path. Kind of like don’t tamper with our beloved Encores.

McWhorter has also been a guest on CNN and has a compelling presence.
 

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 10:55pm

The thing about “cutting the wife beating jokes” to keep older works viable today made me think of “Hair” in particular. I’ve seen maybe one production ever in which Berger still hits Sheila, and none in which the bizarre ballet of everyone else in the tribe hitting her is staged. That whole minor conflict of Berger being a violent misogynist has more or less disappeared from the show and been replaced with him being a more generically unstable, perhaps bipolar, individual.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 11:05pm

Jordan Catalano said: "I do find it interesting that on one hand we have a movement to tell the TRUE history of things that happened in this country even if that means making people uncomfortable, and on the other hand we have a lot of (seemingly) those same educated people saying we need to change and modify historical things so that people won’t be uncomfortable."

 

Because that's not quite what's happening. The pieces you're missing are: framing, context, and purpose. To paraphrase an example used above:

A show exposing the true history of racism against Asian people will be more accepted than a show where white people make racist statements, and they're framed as the innocent heroes of the story. 

Both of these shows fall into your 1st category of "true history," but the point is: how are we framing this history? How are we responding to it? And by extension, are we learning and growing from it, or are we saying "get over it, it wasn't so bad." 

You might say "but we can learn and grow from it by analyzing it as adults no matter how it's framed, because we know it's from the past." And maybe that's true, but I'd refer back to my earlier post: the root of this issue is that we're not on the same page about what the act of putting on a show that's "of it's time" even MEANS.

For you (and others), the act of putting on an outdated show is simply a means of saying "here it is, take from it what you will." And maybe that's what it should be.

By contrast, the prevailing mindset among theatre-makers is more along the lines of "If we're putting on this material in 2022, that means we stand behind every word of it. Because we chose to pull it out from the past, and literally bring it into being 8 times a week." 

Maybe that's not a mindset we should be holding. But the answer can't just be to "stop making changes!" because we have to be on the same page first. And that will take work, clear communication, dramaturgical infrastructure, and building a trust that simply isn't there right now - for reasons I talked about in my earlier post.

Updated On: 2/16/22 at 11:05 PM

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 11:39pm

The idea of Sondheim reworking his own material like Roadshow seems cool to me because he is the original author. But editing or rewriting material that is not your own to make it more relevant and acceptable for 2022 feels wrong.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 11:49pm

Here’s what I don’t understand. Why is that, when it comes to movies people can be more understanding and forgiving. Yet, at least to me, for theatre that is a totally different story. Yes, the character of Mammy in Gone with the Wind is extremely offensive. Yet, after it came back from being pulled off HBO Max, people were able to talk about why it was bad and use it as a starting point for a conversation. Yet, that isn’t something I often see in theatre. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 11:57pm

Islander_fan said: "Here’s what I don’t understand. Why is that, when it comes to movies people can be more understanding and forgiving. Yet, at least to me, for theatre that is a totally different story."

I proposed a possible answer to this exact question, in my post on Page 1 of this thread. And I alluded to it again in my recent post above. 

Updated On: 2/16/22 at 11:57 PM

[Tag]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 12:13am

Next Les Mis revival:
Primary Bedroom of the House

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 10:02am

Sometimes it's cyclical. I remember the Mathew Broderick production of "How to Succeed" was extremely woke with an eye toward the show's misogyny. "Cinderella Darling" for instance was replaced with a newly written (who wrote it?) verse of the title song for the secretaries to sing. There were other cuts as well. But I'm guessing after the satire of "Mad Men" looking back at 60's office culture, the Daniel Radcliff "How To Succeed", 15 years later, guessed its audience now realized the era it was dealing with and the song and a lot of the cut material was back.

I found the wholesale book rewrite of "Annie Get York Gun" unnecessary as well, though not being a Native American, maybe I am not the person to judge the original as racist. But my thoughts at the time were that American Indians could care less; these rewrites were for easily "offended for others" white folk.

But these were Broadway shows.  Encores is a specifically selected showcase.  Again, as they have done in the past, please do cut things that are truly indulgently objectionable (unless it is used as a character's point of view) but leave the rest in tact!  "The Life"'s book isn't very solid, but not necessarily because it doesn't tackle a system that allows for prostitution.  But again, for me, I am very pro-sex work so I would hate there to be any shame thrust upon the women, whether they chose or were forced into it. It's the misogyny of the Chuck Cooper character that is most egregious, but I would not like that rewritten to "soften" him either (though there is an argument that he too was societally, systemically forced into becoming a pimp).

[R. GreenFinch]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 12:14pm

To me, there's a big difference between providing adjustments to outdated language (like they intended with MILLIE, if it had moved forward), and what they did with TAP DANCE KID. 

Adjusting racist dialogue? Understandable and GOOD, especially since these Encores productions often result in changes to future productions. Taking a role away from a plus sized performer and giving it to a straight sized performer because "fat jokes are mean?" Unacceptable, to me. 

Updated On: 8/18/22 at 12:14 PM

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 1:02pm

As I have said I support leaving the book in tact but in doing so sometimes the length becomes an issue. But that has nothing to do with what we all have been discussing. 

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 1:25pm

Drat, it's behind a paywall. Love McWhorter. The most reasonable voice opining on the issues he's opining on today.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 1:56pm

I'm not sure which I'm dreading more -- seeing what Porter does to THE LIFE, or what deBessonnet does to Into The Woods.  Lesson to everyone who called for Jack Viertel to be put out to pasture...be careful what you wish for!

 

[cliffordbradshaw2]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 3:49pm

The 1991 tour of "Bye Bye, Birdie," with Tommy Tune and Ann Reinking, featured an amusing solution to a problem of this nature.  Tune's Albert uttered a decidedly misogynistic remark to Reinking's Rose, eliciting something of a groan in the audience.  Tune turned to the crowd and said, "Hey, it's 1959 up here!"  The audience was amused and the stars resumed the scene.  This was pre-planned, not an ad-lib.

Updated On: 2/17/22 at 03:49 PM

[Ke3]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 4:56pm

On some level I agree. On the other hand I feel like the backlash against changing "problematic" things in shows is a bit ironic considering how much you hear that cliche about "no show is ever really done".

It's especially ironic to see people on this board decrying making changes to shows given how often you see users on here saying "oh yes, that score is gorgeous. The book is just terrible". So are we only in favor of changing things when it's not attached to "woke culture"? Hell, maybe the next time we revive a show from the 20s we should keep the minstrel number in! This is all growing a bit ridiculous on both sides for me. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 2/17/22 at 7:13pm

Can we not do both in a foreseeable future? Lovingly update some shows, and keep others as to provoke legitimate conversation?

At the end of the day, it’s all about presentation. I thoroughly believe that you could present an “un-woke” situation and it not receive backlash, but it has to be intentional.